Of the ones mentioned , Spyware Doctor is very good at both . Some claim it registers too many false positives . I have used it for over a year and it found 1 . I like it and I know it is good at what it does . I do not understand why many have claimed they have gotten false positives . On my machine and in my tests , not a problem . Go figure .
I would recommend Spy Sweeper and ZeroSpyware as well . ZeroSpyware is a nice application and very nice to look at . It has done very well for me thus far . I believe that those 3 offer the best in overall detection AND removal . Ewido is nice as a backup .

I would recommend Spy Sweeper and ZeroSpyware as well . ZeroSpyware is a nice application and very nice to look at . It has done very well for me thus far . I believe that those 3 offer the best in overall detection AND removal . Ewido is nice as a backup .

Click to expand...

And what exactly are you're personal tests you base this on. I find it strange that you discovered this AS app all of a sudden and then within hours you claim the author trustworthy .... Would please care to elaborate and substantiate any of your claims?

I gave a recommendation . That is all . As per your question , Nope . No need . You need justification , go find it elsewhere . I do not need to answer to questions like that . Remember ? I am no expert

I gave a recommendation . That is all . As per your question , Nope . No need . You need justification , go find it elsewhere . I do not need to answer to questions like that . Remember ? I am no expert

Click to expand...

No need to be an expert, but one would expect you to substantiate your claims and recommendations.

I find it more than odd that you "discovered" Zerospyware on/at March 6th, 2006, 08:08 PM and 8 minutes later you proclaim the author trustworthy ... and now it's become one of you're recommendations. Are you saying we should plainly discount any claim you make?

Anyone would think it is against the law to try an application and instantly like it. I never realised that you need to use an app for a period of say 12 months before you can share your positive thoughts about it. I really wish people would share these unknown and uncommon secret laws that us 'newbies' have to abide by. We also seem to have to substantiate our comments. Whatever happened to 'Freedom of speech'. Oh well, suppose some people have to increase their post count...

Hi Muf .
Never feel you need to explain anything . If you are NOT considered an expert , you may say what you think with OR without explanation . There are people here that trust my judgement and I rest on that . For those that question , just let it go . There are people that will ask because they really care and those that ask because they do not believe you to start with . Oh well . ZS has been around awhile . I have known that . I just never tested it but , always meant to ( for the last year anyway ) . Now that I have , I , like you , enjoy it and like it . As for a trust issue , that is idiotic . They have done nothing wrong . The rogue listing was for FP but , that has certainly changed . No spam , no spyware , no threats , no death to America chants so , they are cool with me . As I stated many times , too many here are paranoid . I need not explain it to you though as you already know . Feel free to write me and let me know what your reactions are to this program as time goes by . I would be interested in comparing notes .

I'm also curious about why anyone would question HollywoodPC's opinion on this topic. People in these forums often give unsubstantiated endorsments to anti-spyware products that consistently score badly in lab test and reviews. I agree that both Spysweeper and Spyware doctor should be considered top 3. But I think that there is substantial backing that Zerospyware should also be in the top 3 category. Note the following reviews. PC Magazine and PC World are the 2 top US publications in terms of PC utility coverage. In recent reviews in both magazines Zerospyware was top 3. In PC Magazine in France, it was #1 outperforming both Spysweeper and Spyware Doctor.

The tests performed by PC Magazine US and france in particular were exhaustive and based on sound testing methodology. (note that I point this out even though Zerospyware ranked 3'rd in the US lab test). Based on this I would say that HollyWoodPC's opinion is completely in line with several experts on this topic.

Spy Sweeper's local information, such as it is, appears in a too-small window at the bottom of the screen, although more information is available online at least. In this area, both are shamed by Microsoft AntiSpyware and by ZeroSpyware, the latter of which also offers live chat. Still, actually removing and blocking spyware have to count for more than educating users about what was removed.

I have yet to see a noticable difference between SS and ZS on detection AND removal . Zero . Sad thing is that , as someone stated , once a thief always a thief . Not only is that sad but , ZS was not on the rogue list because of of thievery . Anyone that considers me not so knowledgable can just ignore my posts . The people that give me the credit are the ones that benefit . I like ZS based on what I have seen it do . Period !! And , the support is outstanding . And support is a big part of the equation ! Mags often give biased reviews . However , most of these mags you mention do not say something is good when it is pathetic as a rule . I disagree with many of their reviews but , they give a good measure of what is worth looking at . Especially when more than one of the big mags mention the same products . After a couple of days of working with spyware , and comparing , HEAD TO HEAD , SS and ZS , I can indeed recommend ZS . For the paranoid that need to ask why trust them , use something else and be happy . I too , do question software makers . But , the folks behind ZS are good people . They have a very nice product I use too . Zero Net History . But , that is off topic . Sorry . When I find something worth reporting , I will post it . Take it for what you think it is worth . I am only trying to help . Period !
And , for the record , I have no ties with fbmsoftware . NONE . Even if I did , I judge soley on how good an application does it's job ( s ) . I wish ZS good luck . Nice app that I really do like

Hello EASTER 2010 .
Do you really find Ad Aware that good ? I have found it to be a bit lacking myself . Nice as a freebie but , not in the same league with Ewido or SS . Not disagreeing with you at all . I think you are probably the first to put that in the top 3 of anything .
Just an interesting take is all .

No there's no problem with voicing your opinion, but one would expect that when someone makes technical claims .... such as those mentioned by hollywood ... regarding "detection AND removal'

I believe that those 3 offer the best in overall detection AND removal .

Click to expand...

, that they tested these functions and can qualify the statement. It doesn't need to be rocket science and there isn't any need to be an expert - a simple ... I tested "app X' against "malware1", the technical descriptions by company(s) A & B / and maybe C details this malware writes the following files/reg entries etc. I ran "app X" against "malware1" it flagged all the entries detailed in the writeups, and successfully removed them - which I confirmed through a search of my system - as well as including a few screenshots as documentation. And if that isn't done, at least have references to articles by independant sources that have done as much. I'm sorry but in regards to test done by PC magazines, well that just doesn't cut it really ... any test can be scewd, and it's pretty much excepted that articles in these mags are influenced by ad revenue, so they are taken with more than a grain salt.

muf there's no issue with "instantly" liking something ... and you can comment on the GUI, the overall look and feel, resource usage etc ... but when you make claims like the above about a relatively untested app, well you need to include some kind of evidence. For apps that have stood the test of time and are widely accepted are another matter ... there isn't a need to justify comments on apps like Ad-aware, Spybot ... Ewido or a few others - You don't need to look further than the cleaning instructions given to victims by HJT/Spyware experts for evidence.

As for your "freedom of speech" comment muf ... How exactly do you see that? That arises because I challenged hollywoods claims? What justice is served to members/guests if there not? What would be the point of discussing anything ... isn't the objective to find what's good or not, the truth etc. etc. How else do we arrive at this point?

I have yet to see a noticable difference between SS and ZS on detection AND removal . Zero .

Click to expand...

Me too. Whenever I try any scanner type product, I don't really see any noticable difference, since my machine is assumed to be clean. At best scanner tests just tell me how many FPs it generates , just joking.

I'm not a particularly big fan of hollywood myself, and i wouldn't trust him anymore than I would trust say a poster calling himself Devil's Advocate, but to be fair all he said was

ZeroSpyware is a nice application and very nice to look at . It has done very well for me thus far .

Click to expand...

It's an okay endorsement, not a particularly strong one in fact by standards of Wilders.

Hello,
To clarify - a program is as good as its user and the platform it runs. Let's say it gives you a bsod every 5 hours, but it has 100% detection. Is this good for you? So 'the best' is a loose term.
Mrk

Ok . And again , I agree completely . This is why recommendations are made . So people can get an idea of what people seem to think is good . Then THEY can try for themselves . I have ALWAYS advocated that people need to try something to make sure THEY like and their computer likes it !

there isn't a need to justify comments on apps like Ad-aware, Spybot ... Ewido or a few others - You don't need to look further than the cleaning instructions given to victims by HJT/Spyware experts for evidence.

Click to expand...

There seems to be strange dual standard here, and at the heart question. It seems that the reason that you jumped on HollywoodPC is that he is suggesting security software that is not on the current forum bandwagon, without providing detailed primary research or links to independant reputable third party research. However it is ok to suggest applications like ad-aware and spybot (who in several actual qualified tests score very low in detection and removal.) Because its been mentioned by lots of others in forums. This isn't at all scientific. Adaware and spybot are free and have been for a long time. Their early entry to the market as free apps made them popular in forums long ago, and spyware removal experts on forums are usually more likely to suggest free software over paid software. This is in no way an indicator of their performance. And would suggest that their performance doesn't require any further analysis, which is also odd since good anti-spyware applications are heavily updated every 3-4 months.

I also question the concern towards review sites. Reviews can be skewed by a number of factors. But when you are discussing top rated reputable magazines such as PC Magazine and PC World. Its unfounded. These publications rely on a relatively unbiased reputation to maintain their top position, and have in many cases downgraded software that generates high ad revenue. however there are many publications with less visibility that are more susceptible to influence. Note that I also posted reviews from a review site (neat net tricks) which is not advertising based. The other thing that I find strange about this perspective is that the reviews that I cited each rank the same software (spysweeper, spyware doctor, etc..) in roughly the same order as they are ranked by most users here. If these reviews are all suspect then why the similarity? As an FYI we didn't advertise at all in either of these magazines. (maybe that's why we didn't rank #1 )

Note that the author of the PC magazine article is a very well respected author, and programmer, who actually wrote some of the tools used by anti-spyware researchers to track the effects of spyware on a target system.http://www.pcmag.com/author_bio/0,1908,a=184,00.asp

While the methadology you suggest is admirable, its very difficult for users to perform detailed comparison of multiple anti-spyware applicaitons. Generally requiring access to a wide variety of malware varients (which are extremely difficult to harvest, and mutate frequently) The trivial analysis suggested won't actually yield usefull results.
I have a post on this forum regarding this topichttps://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=122626

As far as why I suddently popped into this forum. I use google alerts that auto send me email on keywords that I assign and trackback from wilders for threads that I am watching. I monitor several security forums, including wilders, pcpitstop, castle cops etc.. Its important to us to understand what the anti-spyware community is looking for in a product, and the difficulties they are having with current spyware. Security forums such as wilders offer a different perspective than that of our existing customer base.

In summary I like that forums such as wilders open discussions on topics like this one. I think its important that a well informed community help shape the products that are needed to serve the community. But bandwaggoning and unfounded skeptisicm are counter to this goal. So far I've seen almost no discussion on features and performance, and actual testing methadology.

I would be happy if there were more people performing detailed tests on these applications because generally we beat the pants off our competitors.

I'm also curious about the testing environments used by the local forum members? Do most people here run multiple anti-spyware for comparison? Does anyone run vmware workstations as testbeds? Does anyone use an online repository of spyware and malware for testing anti-spyware?